Why McGrath's technicolour yawn should have the Poms worried

With so much discussion surrounding Glenn McGrath's comeback at age 36, The Tonk approached the veteran paceman's personal strength and conditioning coach, Jock Campbell, for his assessment on McGrath's physical and mental state ahead of the Ashes. And, as you'll learn, it has been an often stomach churning experience for McGrath in his quest for fitness after an eight-month break from the game. Respond to Jock's thoughts here, or contact him personally at www.jockathletic.com.

When did I know Glenn McGrath was serious about coming back for the Ashes? It was about the time that he was doubled over, vomiting, after I had pushed him hard through a session of sand hill running. This is a guy with nothing to prove - just look at his record - and he could easily have put in less than 100 percent. But that's not his way, and I am more than confident that he is in great shape heading into the Ashes.

I thought before the Champions Trophy that McGrath would be getting close to his top speeds by the middle and latter parts of the tournament. That looks to be on the money. It has astounded me listening to some of the members of the media early on who were questioning his pace. They obviously have very short memories. As someone who has charted his speed readings for the last six years, I can tell you that he is exactly where he should be around the low 130 km/h mark, a few short of his peak. If the members of the media in question had bothered researching his bowling, they would know that too.

With Glenn, it usually takes him two-to-three months to be hitting his top speeds, around the 135-138km/h mark, after a long break. And the most encouraging aspect of this break is that it has not been on account of injury. That has allowed him to enter his pre-season with no physical limitations, and the results so far are very encouraging. It's the first time in over six years he has had a full pre-season training. Due to Australia's heavy playing commitment it is the first time ever since I have been involved that the player's have had more than a 4-6 week pre season preparation, as there has never been a serious break between Series, and the schedule has been all year around. This year the player's have had a 3-4 month break and have been able to complete in most cases 12 week plus pre season training programs. This has been gold, particularly for Glenn! This lengthy pre-season is vital for players to recover from long term niggling injuries, to build a conditioning and strength base specific to cricket that will help with injury prevention, recovery between games, and for improved long term, specific physical performance. That's what McGrath has done!

At any given time, I have had him sea-kayaking on Port Hacking, completing mini-biathlons (sand running and an ocean swim) at Cronulla, hitting the sand dunes, attending speed training at the track, and in the good old fashioned weights room at Wanda Surf Lifesaving Club. It hasn't always been pretty, as I mentioned early, when Pidge was throwing up after some sand running. But he always backed up and showed that he was willing to push himself to the limit to be in the best possible shape for this summer.

He has dropped a lot of body fat, he has recorded several personal bests with his strength training and his general fitness is close to being as good as it ever has. People who are concerned about his age being a factor needn't be. His athletic ability is not diminishing, demonstrated by his speed and athletisim around the field in Malaysia and India this month. He's quite co-ordinated for a tall, gangly fellow! In the gym, he is squatting 10 kilograms heavier than ever before, and he has set a new PB with 16 chin ups. Not bad for a big, old bloke. The power and strength side of his training have been aimed at lessening the likelihood of injuries throughout the year; adding strength, not size, increasing his ability to recover between sessions and to help improve his performance. We are now in a 'power' phase of his program, which focuses on explosive activities, which will help him with his pace running and his throwing and bowling velocity.

In terms of his running, I have had him working with Zane Campbell, one of Australia's top beach sprinters, and Dearrne Cooper, a world champion two kilometre beach runner. That has been great for motivation and variety, but has also served to push Glenn further than he would have if he had just been training on his own. This type of training is done to improve his running efficiency, volume and speed which helps him in many areas of cricket with fielding, batting and bowling. It's quite amusing watching him run - no matter where he is running, he has his right wrist cocked, as if holding a cricket ball. Michael Clarke is always giving him grief about it, shouting, ``Put the ^%&%* ball down, mate!' but it's a habit the big man can't seem to shake.

Having watched him go through all this, it has been interesting to note people who have questioned his desire or physical ability for the Ashes series. The people who have made these comments have always been the ones with not great knowledge about what he has done to prepare and get back to cricket. Just think about what he has gone through, pulling out of the Australian team to care for Jane through her battle with cancer. Again, he didn't have to comeback to cricket. It just shows firstly what kind of a bloke he is, putting family before anything, but also how driven he is to return with the full support of Jane and the kids. What I admire most about Glenn isn't his cricketing ability; it's that he's a great bloke and great family man first. The greatest thing to come out of all this is that Pigeon has always said that when he comes back to cricket, that means Jane is on the mend. We are all thankful for that!

I worked with the Australian cricket team as their strength and conditioning trainer for five years, and I judge an athlete's commitment by how hard he works at training and in preparation for performance. Trust me when I tell you, then, that Glenn is extremely committed this summer. Aside from the physical side of things, I think it's important for everyone to remember, it's actually the mental side of the game where Pidgey dominates! It's his fast bowling brain and ability to work batsmen out and the precision to perfectly execute his plans that makes him the greatest fast bowling wicket-taker ever. And another good sign: he is back to his pestering best. Throughout my time with the Australian team, you knew if McGrath was being annoying, things were good. Right now, he's especially annoying. Watch out, England.

Jock Campell and Paul Watson run Jock Athletic, and count the likes of Ricky Ponting, Michael Clarke, Stuart Clark and, of course, McGrath, among their clients. Jock worked for five years as the Australian cricket team's strength and conditioning trainer, while Paul worked in the same role with the Penrith Panthers, including their premiership-winning 2003 season. For questions regarding personal training, group training or corporate challenges, contact them at info@jockathletic.com

Posted
by Alex BrownOctober 31, 2006 12:05 AM

LATEST COMMENTS

I am very happy to see this marvellous bowler doing well yet again. I think he can achieve anything he sets his mind to.

I think he's the most wonderful pace bowler I've ever seen. Dare I say it, even better than Lillee.

Don't crucify me, it is only a personal opinion.

Posted by: Surdo on October 31, 2006 1:43 AM

I cant believe certain members of the press ever had doubts. ooh ahh at 70% is better than then most fast bowlers playign the game today.

Bring on the Ashes....

Posted by: rick on October 31, 2006 2:20 AM

The black caps may make 120 if they are lucky. Gillie and Watson to get that in 20 overs. You saw it here first.

Pity NZ can't do any sport other than rugby.

Posted by: jimma on October 31, 2006 6:42 AM

OK, as one who has expressed the view that McGrath may not do so well this Ashes series, I would just like to point out although he may be marvellously fit, Dennis Lillee is not still in the Test team.

Eh, what's DM on about? (Note, I am taking Clarke talk-in-the-third person lessons) What I am saying is that no matter how good they are, they all finish sometime. It is just a matter of when.

Posted by: DM on October 31, 2006 9:10 AM

No so DM! Australian players can play on and on and on and they're still better than the players from all other teams. Incidentally, other teams with a few players in their mid to late 30s are referred to by Australians as as "Dads Army"

Posted by: dave on October 31, 2006 10:00 AM

DM:
I too was worried about the Greatest Fast bowler of all time, his first Champions trophy performance was not encourageing.

Then he came out and bowled against India like he started in the first game of the Ashes. The Metronome. If he hadn't been injured in that sersies it would have been 5-0.

For the rest of you Thomases: I don't think there will be any doubt after he has a good Ashes series and takes 30+ wickets.

Posted by: jimma on October 31, 2006 10:05 AM

Jimma, you seem to have forgotten that apart from India, the Kiwis are the last team to draw a test series in Australia, and they are also in the semi-finals of the champions trophy, which must mean they are not exactly the worst side in the world. Didn't they chase down 330 against the Aussies at the start of the year? I think tomorrow night's game will be a ball-tearer - though if Fleming fails they could be in strife.

Posted by: Sam on October 31, 2006 10:14 AM

Draw a test series? That's an achievement? Doesn't count if any of the tests are rain affected.

Was pidgeon playing in that 1-dayer? Anyway, matches played on basketball courts don't count.

Pidgeon always takes the wicket of the best batsman, so Fleming (or is it double m?) is up the proverbial creek. So are the shaky isles.

Posted by: jimma on October 31, 2006 10:39 AM

dave,
what's your point?

Posted by: Ben on October 31, 2006 10:40 AM

Jimma - NZ were saved by rain in one test, Australia in another when the Kiwis racked up 650 in their first innings. Considering that only South Africa and India have drawn a series down here since 1993, I'd say that's a fair achievement. That's over 20 series and only 3 teams have drawn here.

At any rate, barring utter disaster, I can't see NZ capitulating for 120. And if Pigeon always gets the best opposition batsman out, why didn't he do so against India? If you look at the scorecard I think you'll find that Lee got Dravid.

Posted by: Sam on October 31, 2006 10:58 AM

Just responding to DM having the temerity to suggest Australia has an ageing side.

Posted by: dave on October 31, 2006 10:59 AM

Pidge has surprised me with his longevity, usually (a la AFL) the little blokes survive a lot longer than the big ones.

Someone yesterday made the assertion that he was the "master prober" I think he should be justifiably proud of that.

No doubt a fit McGrath in England last year and Australia wins. Mid you if numbers 1-6 had batted even poorly rather than pathetically Australia wins too so another reminder of the team nature of sport I suppose.

Pending Janes health his massive mental strength should get him back to England for one last hurrah. The development of Johnson, Clark and Bracken needs to be complete by then just in case.

Posted by: Don King Sux on October 31, 2006 11:02 AM

As Jaques said yesterday:
"McGrath's fine as long as his team's on top. The moment they are not he behaves like a tool. This will be a large portion of his legacy".

Dear Tonk, can we stop having pig shooter-related topics? Please!

Posted by: OD on October 31, 2006 11:05 AM

Have you guys read Peter Roebuck this morning? It is an excellent examination of the form of McGrath.

I was particularly intrigued by this paragraph:

Naturally, Glenn McGrath's spells were closely watched. At first his showdown with Sachin Tendulkar resembled a confrontation between two clapped-out gunslingers. Every ball McGrath sent down landed in the right place, it just took a little longer to get there. Meanwhile, Tendulkar scratched around like a lost hen. His footwork was inept and he was troubled by lifters, a chink opponents have spotted. Apparently, he is worried about his eyesight. On this evidence, he ought to see an optician.

Posted by: Rocky Balboa on October 31, 2006 11:10 AM

Sam:

Drawing a series is not success. But i spose can be regarded as good for the kiwi gold (as bronze was dubbed by TV3 NZ at the recent commonwealth games) brigade.

Well 'best' batsmen is always up for debate. I don't think anyone in their right mind would say that they would take Dravid over Tendulker. Dravid is second in history only to Bevan in the 'put you to sleep batting style' stakes.

Posted by: jimma on October 31, 2006 11:25 AM

I agree with OD - let talk about something else like who will replace Ponting as captain and Beauchanun as "coach" and Watson as village idiot.

Posted by: Dallas on October 31, 2006 11:27 AM

Jimma, I'd take Dravid over Tendulkar.

Posted by: OD on October 31, 2006 11:32 AM

Good idea Dallas. I've got a real talent in mind for the village idiot spot: You.

Posted by: james on October 31, 2006 12:03 PM

OD - well said. I don't think anyone in their right mind would take Tendulkar over Dravid if the last 4 years is anything to go by. And I don't think anyone would take anyone over Bevan in any ODI circumstances.

Few purists would argue with the statement that Dravid is technically the best batsman in the world, and his strike rate of 70, average of 40, and his 84 50+ ODI scores at a rate of about 1 every 3 innings shows that he's not the worst.

Geez his 184 in a ODI a few years back must have been a boring affair....

Posted by: Sam on October 31, 2006 12:05 PM

Anyone who thinks Dravid is a better batsmen than Tendulker is not being a realist.

It saddens me the lengths people will go to to avoid supporting and/or acknowledging Glenn McGrath's value to the team (even at his age)....such comments about McGrath like, 'I can't believe batsmen still fall to the same ball' (Sam) are just laughable.

Posted by: Ian on October 31, 2006 12:12 PM

Just did some research into the "Tendulkar vs McGrath" debate that Peter Roebuck's article talks about, and which Ricky Ponting thinks is winning.

Its pretty bloody close - nothing conclusive. Tendulkar's average against Aus in ODI's is a few runs up on his career average, and goes up even higher as of 1994, when McGrath first played against him. McGrath only goes for 24 off him for every time he gets him though, which is interesting - basically kind of shows overall that Tendulkar is content to try and see off McGrath, and when he does, he scores a bagful - but in nearly a third of their matches McGrath does get him. As was mentioned in another topic - its strange that Tendulkar hasn't worked out a method of scoring heavily off Pigeon. He seems to have no trouble doing it to Warne.

Posted by: Sam on October 31, 2006 12:32 PM

I don't know what speed gun Jock is using but McGrath is no where near hitting the low 130's kph on a consistent basis. Try 123-125 with the occasional 130 effort ball.

Can't argue with McGrath's fitness levels though. He looked on fire in the field against India. But as a bowler, he looks like a pie thrower who throws his pies on a consistently nagging line just outside off stump.

Apart from a crippled Lara, a blind Tendulkar and a couple of tailenders, what other top class batsman has he dismissed?

Come The Ashes, England will be licking their lips at the prospect of spanking McGrath (Again).

Posted by: Si-O on October 31, 2006 1:02 PM

I can't be bothered with researching the stats to back me up (and I'd argue against them if the went the "wrong" way anyway), but I reckon Dravid is India's best batsman at the moment. Easily. Sure, Tendulkar was great as a few years back. But that was, um, a few years back.

Posted by: Osmond on October 31, 2006 1:38 PM

James, defender of the bogan.

At least you agree that watson is an idiot in need of replacing.

This progress is encouraging.

Posted by: Dallas on October 31, 2006 1:55 PM

Ian - its an opinion, so deal with it. Remember when the Kiwis left simply everything he bowled outside off-stump? McGrath had nothing. I still think he is the best Aussie fast bowler I've seen, or ever will see, and is second only behind Ambrose as far as fast bowlers worldwide go. It doesn't mean I have to subscribe to some stupid theory that the guy is perfect and the greatest gift that cricket has ever received. The bottom line is, he bowls everything on a five-cent piece, and sure, its extremely hard to hit balls to the boundary off that length - so what's the next best thing to do? Leave it alone, or bunt it into a gap for a single, not hang the bat out like a bloody fishing rod.

And in regard to Tendulkar and Dravid? Tell me Ian, where was Tendulkar when India followed on in Kolkata, or when they were a million behind in Adelaide? The stats don't always tell everything - but if they did, they'd show that Dravid averages nearly 4 more than Tendulkar, but more to the point, he's helped his team win tests against Australia with their backs to the wall, and he has done it elsewhere. Tendulkar 7 years ago might have been the closest to batting perfection that I will ever see, but he is now, and has been for several seasons, a pale shadow of what he was once capable of.

I think you are the one who needs to be a realist and accept that the mantle of Indian batting greatness has been passed from one great to another. Tendulkar never looked remotely comfortable at any stage the other night. Dravid faced all five quicks and never looked uncomfortable.

Posted by: Sam on October 31, 2006 1:57 PM

dave,
ok. Just wondering where you've seen the 'dad's army' comments made by Australians?

Posted by: Ben on October 31, 2006 1:59 PM

Technically correct, and a good average does not make you an enjoyable batsman to watch. Did you see the 184? Was it against Bangladesh? I think you are full of the proverbial.

I can't believe I was bothered, but I did, and according to Cricinfo his highest score is 153 Vs those cricketing giants NZ in India.

As I am a sychophant and usually only watch matches involving Australia or which take place in Australia (unless it's a final or something) becuase of Foxtell and their tendancy to be on late at night, I don't follow the Indian team that closely. I see that Dravid averages 27 against Australia and has scored no tons. So excuse me for thinking he's crap.

Tendulkar averages more v Australia, (indeed more than his average against all comers): 46 vs Dravids 27 against 'Straya. Tendulkar has scored something like 7 tons against us, where Dravid gets the donut. So if you want to quote stats at me better do your homework.

Surely form agaisnt the best side in the world has to count, not tons against NZ, the WI (when they too were crap) and SL (on the same wickets he is used to at home).

On another matter:
Give me the huss bucket over Bevan or anyone else in ODI's. Can't believe he didn't get a game ahead of Clarke in the Ashes last year.

Posted by: jimma on October 31, 2006 2:04 PM

Spot on Osmond.

Posted by: Sam on October 31, 2006 2:07 PM

Ian - why is it unrealistic to claim Dravid to be better than Tendulkar?

Posted by: OD on October 31, 2006 2:10 PM

OD:
See above or go to Cricinfo.

True, Tendulkar may have lost his mojo over the last few years but he has had a dodgy arm from the 5 tonne bat he uses. Give him a trouble free build up to the Windies next year and look out

Posted by: jimma on October 31, 2006 2:16 PM

Hello Don King Sux,

Makes me wonder why it might be that Don King sucks? Also leaves me wondering just how well you are able to process information? After reading what you both wrote, it seems that you actually agree with his point about Glenn McGrath yesterday.

This leaves me wondering about the set up of a blog like this. Are there factions and affiliations? Are you a staunch supporter of the right wing facist sam? Were you sad to see sam get a bit upset yesterday? It's all fun and games. I'd like to see a bit more of his stuff.

And by the way, where is Don King anyway? He just turns up out of the blue, shakes up the joint and leaves with a see ya fellas. Who was that masked man? Come on Don, come back for another few overs. Spice it up a bit.

As for Pidgeon, he's not back because he was never gone! He is pure class and he'll know when he's lost the edge that leads to a graceful retirement. Until then, let's sit back and enjoy the ride.

Posted by: The Observer on October 31, 2006 2:16 PM

Fair call Jimma - his highest ODI score is indeed the one you mentioned - my mistake, my apologies. I'm sure his 150-odd was a dull affair as well though...

You are right - he does indeed average much less than Sachin against Australia in the pointless version of the game - though he still passes 50 every 4th innings. I don't suppose you'll bother taking into account that Tendulkar has been playing ODI's against the Aussies since 1991 - given that our discussion is about who is a better batsman NOW not throughout the duration of a 15 year career. He also averages 50+ against Australia in the proper version of the game. If you think Dravid is boring, it is my opinion - not fact - that you don't seem to appreciate the finer aspects of the game. I would watch Dravid block 100 balls before I'd cross the street to watch most other batsmen hit boundaries.

Posted by: Sam on October 31, 2006 2:21 PM

Jimma,
See above.
Or go to Cricinfo (it's a good site).

Posted by: OD on October 31, 2006 2:29 PM

Observer - you got one thing right - Right Wing Fascism. The day anyone refers to me as anything else is the day I turn it up.

Posted by: Sam on October 31, 2006 2:35 PM

Sam:

Well done. Take me to task over the timeline and then use something that has nothing to do with ODI's discussion: Test matches.

ODI's have nothing to do with the so called 'finer aspects of the game' they were dreamed up by the late great Kerry Packer to make moolah. They are wham-bam-thankyou-mam games designed to draw a crowd, and TV audience.

Then you deliver the coup de gras: watch Dravid block 100 balls etc...? You are obviously a little bit different mate. Dare I say it a kiwi or a pom? Would explain allot of things.

FYI I saw every ball of the Ashes series, much to my productivity at work's detriment!

Posted by: jimma on October 31, 2006 2:39 PM

Hey Sam,

Ya Greenie!

Now show me turn it up please.

Posted by: The Observer on October 31, 2006 2:49 PM

Right Wing Fascism? As opposed to Left Wing Fascism????

I'd like to hear from Don King again too. Don, what's with the Steve Irwin business???

1. ST carried India's batting for years efore the likes of Dravid, Sehwag and co stepped it up; Dravid has not had this responsibility on his shoulders as yet and has not been required to carry a team (in the batting dept.)under the same sort of pressure;

2. Dravid's development into the fine batsman he is today has been a much slower process than STs in comparison. Sachin destroyed many classy international bowling attacks from very early on in his career...he was obviously gifted with more natural batting talent than Dravid;

3. Dravid is defensively solid, (probably one of the best), but he clearly does not have the same variety of stroke play as ST. This is particularly evident on the on-side. As such, Dravid can get bogged down to good lines (like blocking a 100 balls Sam), while ST (and Lara) in the same circumstances will often choose to counter attack and manufacture a more creative response to good bowling. They simply refused to be dominated at the crease.

I'm not knocking Dravid at all as I think he is a fine batsman. He is also in better 'form' than ST at the moment. But overall, I believe Dravid has some ways to go before you can say he's truly a better batsman than Sachin.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I would suspect Dravid would admit that ST has indeed achieved things in the batting Dept that he is yet to.

Posted by: Ian on October 31, 2006 3:06 PM

Sorry Osmond, not the time or place for a lesson in history and politics. But in short, you don't know your left wing from your right wing - how you gonna get off the ground like that? Your what's called a goose.

I'm getting the feeling we're Glenn McGrathed out. Two days in a row.

Here's a question for you? When Punter got the captaincy over Gilchrist, what if it went the other way. Where would we be now. What if Gilchrist captains like he bats - sure could be hit and miss -but hey, what a ride that would be.

Posted by: The Observer on October 31, 2006 3:20 PM

That's the spirit Observer! But maybe you're thinking of penguins??

I prefer Gilchrist to Ponting as skipper. Ponting whinges too much, but Gilchrist also really impressed me in India. He was far more willing to set defensive fields than Ponting ever is, and I think that took Australia some way to winning the series. Gilchrist can grind it out, as well as attack. Ponting lacks sublety.

But if Shane Warne weren't so unstatesman-like off the field, he would've made a great captain, I reckon.

Posted by: Osmond on October 31, 2006 3:52 PM

AARRRGGHH !!!

Not the happiest of Jans !

As a paid-up member of the Melbourne Cricket Club, one would like to think a small courtesy letter in the post or email a few weeks before Visitor tickets for members went on sale wouldn't be too much to ask.

Hell, we pay enough for the privilege.

But NOooo ...

Apparently, a newsletter mailed back in JULY was sufficient notice along with an obscure reminder in the print edition of the newspaper for those who know where to look.

Seriously. Like I don't have enough on my plate right now to keep an eye out for that kind of crap.

And they weren't even fazed by the notion that their service might be considered a tad substandard.

Is the SCC this lax ?

Posted by: Curious George on October 31, 2006 3:59 PM

Ian - finally someone with a constructive argument. You do make some very good points. I too agree that ST has some shots in his repetoir that seem almost humanly impossible, as does Lara. No-one will probably ever be as good as ST was in his prime in the ODI arena, but in all honesty, he has not batted consistently well for a number of seasons, and despite the aura surrounding him, I think the guy who opens the batting with him would pose more fears over the last two years, and Dravid, being the middle order (and former opening) lynchpin, I'd say that opposition captains look at Dravid as the prize wicket these days.

One point you made that I have do disagree with is that ST has always carried the Indian batting - in his early days he had Mohammad Azhurrudin (a fantastic player) who was probably the premier batsman, then he himself shouldered most of the batting, but Ganguly was almost his eaul in ODI's for many years, and Dravid and Sehwag have also joined the party at various stages. When you think about some of the batsmen they've had, as well as Kumble and Singh, you'd think that they would've done better over the years.

Jimma, test matches have everything to do with my point - that point being that in recent years in more or less every aspect of the game Dravid has been more productive. For some reason you seem to think that boundaries have to be flayed everywhere for cricket to prove interesting. I can appreciate this view, but cannot agree with it, as repetitive slogging and boundary hitting does not equate to visual pleasure for me unless there is some context to it. Yes, at times a Shahid Afridi waltzing up the pitch and pulling a ball off a good length for 6 is exciting, but it is also very crude and takes nothing but a decent eye and a wild swing. Watching technicians like Mark Waugh and Rahul Dravid, Damien Martyn etc. is far easier on the eye, even if they are playing defensively. And if you are absolutely set on discussing the immediate merits of who is better - no timelines, no ODI/Test comparison - look at the scorecard from the other night.

Posted by: Sam on October 31, 2006 4:14 PM

I agree defensive play can be good to watch (one point though; I don't think Mark Waugh is in the Rahul Dravid / Damien Martyn class).

Posted by: Clarke Jacques on October 31, 2006 4:36 PM

Do you mean he was better or worse, CJ? I didn't particularly rate M Waugh all that highly, but my God he was good to watch.

Posted by: Sam on October 31, 2006 4:50 PM

I mean that he was inferior. Personally I don't even think he was good to watch. Good at staying calm though.

Posted by: Clarke Jacques on October 31, 2006 4:54 PM

I just read the lead article by Jock OCH AYE! MacCampbell . McGrath's as mad as a cut snake and twice as dangerous. Still reckon he'll be dodgy come Ashes time but he'll give it a red hot go.

Anyhow what about Bondy of NZ? Is he going to let rip or is Marto going to stroll his way to another 70? Interested to see how Gilly and Watto go as well.

Posted by: Pope Paul VII on October 31, 2006 5:17 PM

Ok, if enough McGrath, what about this..
--
Did you know that Kim Hughes captained Australia in the Windies in 1984, and England in 1981?

Did you know that Australia lost the 1984 series 3-0, and the 1981 series 3-1?

Did you know that in both of these instances, he led the first Australian touring team to not feature a leg-spinner, not even a part-time one, or a chinaman, since WWII?

The 1955 Australian team to the Windies featured Benaud, among others. The 1965 team included Peter Philpott, and others (need to check. - Johnny Martin, Andrew Sincock?) The successful 1973 Australian team featured 3 frontline legspinners (Jenner, O'Keefe and Watkins), as well as back-up support from Ian Chappell and Keith Stackpole. The unsuccessful 1978 team included Jim Higgs, and Bob Simpson. (The unsuccessful 1991 team also featured finger spinners - it was not until the advent of Warne that legspinning was back in favour, with him helping win the 95 series - then both Warne and MacGill chosen for the 99 and 03 series.)

Bill O'Reilly seems to have had a point in bagging the 1980's selection bias against legspinners.

Imagine a decent leggie bowling to Botham, and especially the tailenders, in those run assaults. That alone could have made Australia 3-1 winners.

Imagine a leggie bowling to hard-pushing Haynes, Greenidge and Richardson. Much has been made of the weak Australian batting, and the dominant Windies' bowling, in that series, but the real story was the Windies rattling up 400 and 500+ in quick time, and then being able to exert pressure on an inexperienced batting line-up - eventually the pressure told. The Windies would probably still have won 2-0, but the defeats would have been more honourable, and the scars, on Lawson, Hughes and Border, in particular, probably less horrific.

--

Now, let us examine the selection cycle as it applies to the 1981 and 1984 tours.

The 1980-1 series was against NZ and India at home. The top 6 played all 6 tests: Dyson, Wood, Chappell, Hughes, Border and Walters. Lillee, Pascoe, Hogg and Lawson shared the quick bowling duties; Higgs and Yardley the spin. Come the 1981 tour, 2 of these were unavailable for the tour, and 3 were dropped. So up to 5 guys were playing tests in England who had had no tests the summer before - massively poor planning. Of these, T Chappell, Kent, Beard were never picked again, and Wellham had never played a test before. Yet Shaun Graf, who was Test 12th Man all summer, missed the tour completely.

How indulgent by Chappell to leave his decision not to tour so late; and how the Board then dropped the experienced Walters beggars belief.

With regards to 1984, only 3 players were debuted in the 1983-4 run-fest against Pakistan (Phillips, Matthews and Maguire.) With the retirement of Marsh, Phillips was moved to #8 in the order and took up keeping duties (due to finger injury for Woolley.) Yallop was injured in a ODI and did not tour. So the line-up for the tour included 5 batsman who did not play the previous test series, and 3 of them had a total of 3 tests between them. All that, in a team about to play perhaps the best attack ever seen, on hostile pitches... great planning, fellas!

On the bowling front for that tour, Lawson and Hogg picked themselves, but Hogg was a nototiously bad tourer (see him on Indside Cricket last night - same off the field as on!) Rackemann was injury-prone, having broken down the previous 2 summers. Alderman was never going to do well in the Windies, and had been carted by them here in 81-2. Maguire and McCurdy were bits and pieces bowlers - and only played 1 test between them the previous summer. Hogan and Matthews = finger spinners - see above.

Why was Dutchy Holland not tried against the Pakistanis in Sydney in 83-4 - as was John Watkins in 72-3 - to see if he had the class to tour... events favoured Border in that regard, with Holland's role in the one win in 84-5. Too late, selectors. (Holland took a bag of wickets at mid-20's average in the Shield in 83-4.)

So the real issue for Australia was not really the simultaneous retirement of Chappell, Marsh &Lillee, but the lack of planning to prepare for that event (and letting all 5 play all 5 tests in the mother of all farewells, now seems ridiculously self-indulgent.)

There are lessons to be learnt as we manage the exit of Langer, Martyn, Gilchrist, McGrath and eventually Warne.

And history should cut Kim Hughes some slack when it comes to judging his overseas captaincy record - it seems he led two of the worst, and worst prepared, touring teams of the modern era.

Posted by: Peter Warrington on October 31, 2006 5:49 PM

Can't say I agree with the comments about Mark Waugh. He had to be one of the best to watch. It all looked so easy - he might as well have had a beer in one hand and be checking the snags between whipping some quick off his pads to square leg. Slats was another that was great to watch.

I also agree that Warnie (despite being a yobo) would have made a great captain. Ponting should listen to him more often!

Posted by: Gonzo on October 31, 2006 5:58 PM

sorry, McCurdy did not tour in 84, only 5 "quicks" plus Hogan and Matthews went. also, wrong Sincock - it was David who bowled the diddlies, and he did tour in '65. Johnny Martin went on the 64 England tour. A guy called John Hill played some tests in '55 - sounds like the O'Keefe/Kumble prototype. I think Normie O'Neill might have bowled part-time leggies - maybe not. 17 test wickets, anyway.

who was on that selection panel -think that was still Neil Harvey? he has a lot to answer for...

Posted by: Peter Warrington on October 31, 2006 7:01 PM

This blog lacks spice.

I think Shane Watson is over-rated, talks too much and looks like Ethan Hawke.

I also think Mitchell Johnson has a bright future ahead.

I also think Stuart Broard is the next Glenn McGrath, with a vocab to boot.

Discuss..........

Where is Ben and Rob?

Posted by: Adrian on October 31, 2006 8:25 PM

Peter,

Murray Bennet went in 85 as well. do u count him as a leggie?

they took 3 spinners in 85 if u count greg matthews but he was more batsman than bowler.

re 2001, did Macgill go? funky miller went. i dont recall macgill being there. i could be wrong though. re the early 80's mate i am not that interested

i think retirements can be managed reasonably well these days. hayden is another. 4 of our top 7 35 plus. there are replacements. haddin for gilchrist. you will get the jealousy adam berry brigade getting stuck into haddin like gilchrist. apparently you have to not be able to bat to be a proper keeper. Jacques for Langer. In the middle order we have clarke, cosgrove, watson, d hussey. that tassie kiddie looks good too.

the australian team has a long way to drop. i mena at the moment they win basically every game they play. they can drop a fair bit and still be a good side. from memory other than the 2 ashes tests, ponting has only lost 1 other test as captain. i have to check that. that a very good side

Peter Warrington mate, its 2006. Discuss something in the present context. Why do you always insist on digging up black and white video's of the 50's and 60' and telling us what happened then.

The focus of the blog is meant to be Glenn McGrath, not who was playing immediately after WW2.

If you want to do that, I'll be happy to find an RSL club for you where you will be appreciated.

Posted by: John from Dubbo on October 31, 2006 11:55 PM

I look more than forward to seeing all of you Ponting haters eat a lot of humble pie after the up-coming Ashes series. If this is all you people can think of then you are very bland in the thoughts department. When he attacks, then you have a go at him, when he defends, then again you find something to cry about. It goes without saying that he is the best bat in the world and if he hadn't lost the ashes we would not be having this conversation. His record in both forms of the game is outstanding and he has the best stats for wins as a Captain in ODI's. Donny Osmond says that he whinges to much, what, a little bit of passion does not sit well with you, I thought you would be like most Australians and would want to win the game. Gilly's and Warnes records with the judiciary are similar if not worse than Ponting's so what’s your point. I think you just don't like Tasmanian's (is that it).

Or is it that he does not have the corporate backing of say Steve Waugh or Mark Taylor which makes them more likeable.

So please pick something better than saying that there are better Captains in the Australian team at the moment, because there is not.

Posted by: Tony G on November 1, 2006 6:11 AM

Tomorrow's match up.

NZ
1. Bond. versus Aussie, 29 wickets @ 14 a peice. Without Akhtar, the first qick that the Aussies will face in this tourny who puts it in the 150's. Unlike Lee, very accurate to go with his pace.
2. Lower order. Vettori averaging 30 with the bat this season, Oram (bat & ball) & McCullam's strike rate. He has an exceptional eye.
3. Fleming. Like a good red, he's getting so much better with age- average 48 in '04 & 38 this year.
4. Fleming's captaincy. The best in the world by a country mile. By having to make do with what he's historically had, this aspect must not be underestimated.

Aus
1. Cleaned the kiwis up in 15 of last 17. 'nough said.
2. Ponting, averages 45 against the kiwis, from 31 matches & has averaged in excess of 40 over the last two years.
3. McGrath. I never bought into this 'washed up' scenario. He's also taken 50 wickets against NZ @ 19 a peice, from 26 ODI's.

Prediction.
Vincent to finally get some runs, but NZ won't be able to cope with the start that Oz give themselves.

Posted by: Ockerknocker on November 1, 2006 6:21 AM

Warrington,
A most enjoyable read - some of your best work. I've always held the view that Phillips was harshly treated (off the back initially signing up for rebel tour to South Africa, along with Wood and Wellham) when dropped in 85/86 - what's your view? He was certainly a better keeper than Zoehrer and Dyer and a decent bat (he even scored runs in the Windies).
In terms of your point about current planning, there's also Hayden and MacGill to phase out too (assuming Gillespie already has been?).

I think Warne would have been an embarrassment as captain, which is no judgement on his tactical nous.

Posted by: dave on November 1, 2006 8:57 AM

yes indeed Gonzo re the comments on Mark Waugh. He'd easily be one of the best to watch.

On the other hand, Martyn would be one of the worst to watch simply because it involves so much scratching around most of the time. Are there any variations on the slash backward of point, or the push to cover?

His walk back to the pavilion is particularly enjoyable to watch I guess.

Posted by: Hamish on November 1, 2006 9:31 AM

In recent years gone, well since Shoaib Akhtar and Brett Lee burst onto the scene - speed guns have become part and parcel of cricket.

However, the speed gun isn't as accurate in telling if a bowler is quick or not to a batsmen out in the middle.

Brett Lee and Shoaib bang it into the pitch at varied lengths and can get upto speeds of 150+ but McGrath places the ball on a certain length more often than not - as we have seen over the years, he places the ball and makes it jump up to the batsmen so it becomes difficult to play hence they have less time to react from where the ball pitched to when it reaches them. He does this by using his height and bowling the ball so that it is has optimal length and bounce. Now, ball speed in regards to speed guns takes a back seat here, batsmen will find it harder to face a 130km an hour McGrath on just short of a lengt ball than a 150km an hour brett lee on a short ball or a fullish ball. Brett Lee is not as tall or accurate as McGrath and will not get a better optimal combination of length and bounce. Hence McGrath is a better bowler and he does not have to be a speed machine.

Posted by: Barry on November 1, 2006 9:52 AM

Hamish,
I completely disagree with regarding Martyn. I find him the most attractive to watch. Different strokes for ... different needs.

Posted by: dave on November 1, 2006 10:17 AM

Are you for real Hamish? You don't enjoy watching Martyn bat? The only thing I feel negatively towards him is jealousy, that he makes hitting the ball to the cover boundary so easy. Oh well, to each their own I guess. He does have variation, that glorious flick through mid wicket is a personal favourite.

Posted by: Fyson on November 1, 2006 10:31 AM

Barry, I think its pretty well established that one doesn't need to bowl at 150 clicks to be a great bowler. However Bond bowls as quick as Lee (maybe not on the speed gun but I swear that to the naked eye he looks quicker) and manages to put it on the right length as well.

Tony G - no-one here is a Tasmanian hater - David Boon is a Tasmanian. Secondly, no-one here seems to expressly hate Ricky Ponting, and while I'm sure many don't rate him as THE BEST batsman in the world, everyone rates him right up there. The point is, he DID lose the Ashes, and at no stage in his captaincy have I seen him do anything tactically fantastic to get wickets. Of course he has a great cpataincy record - look at what's at his disposal. He may well end up with the greatest captaincy record of all time. But his standing as a captin will be assessed well and truly in a few years when Australia are n longer virtually unbeatable, and are getting tested regularly. Ponting is a good leader, but that does not necessarily make him a good captain.

Posted by: Sam on November 1, 2006 10:37 AM

Peter Warrington you've made me pine for a simpler age, when you could get a seat, or indeed a patch of grass, at the SCG. When you could battle it out on Moore Park and then retire to The Bat and Ball for a schooner or two.

Does anyone remember "Dyer's catch"?
For years any near miss on the park was referred to as "Dyer's catch" ?

Posted by: Pope Paul VII on November 1, 2006 10:49 AM

Bond bowls a heavy ball (like McGrath) which makes the ball come off the wicket at a sharper angle. This makes him difficult to play and effectively quicker than he actually is according to the policeman behind the sight screen (did that make sense?). I remember Wayne Holdsworth bowled absolutely rapid but from a low, slinging action. So his deliveries just skidded along to the batsman with no real angle off the wicket making him far easier to play than a guy bowling 30ks an hour slower but with plenty of work on the seam.

In short. Bond, good.

Posted by: Fyson on November 1, 2006 10:50 AM

Spot on Fyson. Cracker Holdsworth is a great example.

Posted by: Sam on November 1, 2006 11:02 AM

TONI,

Not sure if any of that was supposed to be taken seriously, but in response to your Tasmanian question, I'd like to see players like Birt and Griffith get talked-up the way Johnson and Cosgrove do. Not sure what Ponting thinks of other Tasmanians though, he left the place, after all!

Disagree with you about his abilities as captain, but it's hard to go past him as the best bat in the world right now.

Fyson,

It's a shame that Bond never managed to string a few games together. He could've been the best quick around, I rekcon.

Posted by: Osmond on November 1, 2006 11:22 AM

To be fair to Pontings captaincy, I do think the "tactical-captain" is a dying breed.

Ponting has so many coaches, analysts, specialist coaches, trainers etc around him that he doesn't need to do any thinking most of the time - which does explain why the captaincy burden never affected his batting. He went to a cricket academy and started his career in the professional era so he doesn't have the instincts that the tubby taylors, allan borders or the richie benauds developed through the days of 'cricket without rocket-scientists'.

That is why he hasn't displayed the art of making genius calls on the field ala Mark Taylor.

Most countries do follow Australias methods so its only a matter of time before captains will become limited to providing inspiration through actions rather than be the brain of the team on the field.

Posted by: Barry on November 1, 2006 11:26 AM

Harold Larwood 5ft 9" (175cm).
Malcolm Marshall 5ft 10" (178cm ).

Posted by: Pope Paul VII on November 1, 2006 11:28 AM

Glad you could follow it Sam. I lost myself somewhere in my argument there.
Bond still has time. He's not that old, is he? It is a shame though Osmond. You think of guys like Bruce Reid and how good he would have been if he wasn't constructed from balsa wood and sticky tape.

Posted by: Fyson on November 1, 2006 11:37 AM

Andrew

Finger spinners get the finger from me (and the late, great, curmudgeonly Tiger.)

It's possible that I am the greatest Tasmanian cricket export. But not probable.

John from Dubbo, sorry if it bored you. I have a crack at the modern stuff sometimes, but when there's 2 days of puerile name calling (which I eschew), and re-hashed "debate" about McGrath (which I have joined in), then I can't hold back any more. 3 quarters sticky nostalgia, 1 quarter tourettes and one quarter ADD. (I guess, too, like Lenin, I always thought we should be wary of history repeating itself - on the Jonesey/Warrington Ashes podcasts, coming your way soon, you could reasonably expect a killer Split Enz guitar riff at this point.)

Put Paul Keating and me down for the next double wicket comp...

Posted by: Peter Warrington on November 1, 2006 11:49 AM

Osmond and Fyson - agree with you totally about Bond - on his day I think he is the best fast bowler in the world, but he is already 31, so he doesn't have a heap of time left to make a huge name for himself. Reid and Ian Bishop are probably two of the better "what might have been" examples. Both super bowlers who just had rotten luck.

Posted by: Sam on November 1, 2006 11:53 AM

I think Bond's in his thirties now.

Bruce Reid is second only to Malcolm Marshall (love ya work, Pope) on my list of favourite quicks. Would've loved to see him play another 50-odd tests. Good stuff.

Posted by: Osmond on November 1, 2006 11:57 AM

Peter Warrington, I know everyone's been hanging out for the answer to your question - Norm O'Neill did bowl legspinners, at a very quick speed - sort of like Afridi.

Shorter fast bowlers is an interesting subject - the skidders do have some advantages, mainly that you don't see them so often, and the ball always seems to get to you quicker than you think. Lindwall was another who wasn't very tall. Has anyone seen the young bloke Coyte, who was 12th for NSW last week? Apparently he's another one of this breed.

Posted by: DM on November 1, 2006 12:07 PM

Pub Trivia fact: Bond was a policemen in NZ before he was called upto the national squad.

Shane Bond is a like Michael Kasprowicz with a bit more 'oomph' to his deliveries. World best when fit.

Posted by: Barry on November 1, 2006 12:10 PM

Don't panic Adrian, still here! Went on holidays for a few days.

"Bruce Reid is second only to Malcolm Marshall (love ya work, Pope) on my list of favourite quicks. Would've loved to see him play another 50-odd tests. Good stuff."

Does anyone have fond memories of Angus Fraser other than me... no? Okay then.

Posted by: Rob on November 1, 2006 12:27 PM

Great comparison Barry - he does have a rather Kasper-like action doesn't he. I can still remember what I think was his first test wicket - he knocked Steve Waugh's middle peg clean out at Bellerive, though I could be wrong.

Posted by: Sam on November 1, 2006 12:40 PM

Can't people are still going on about Martyn only having a couple of shots in his game. Sure, his bread & butter shot maybe hitting behind point but did you see him bat against India? A couple of very nice pull shots and a glorious lofted off drive.
As dave said, different strokes, but personally I love watching the technicians who are slowly disappearing (like serve & vollyers in tennis) because of the amount of one day cricket being played.

Posted by: Ben on November 1, 2006 12:52 PM

Good call Ben. Twenty20 and the even more hectic nature of one day cricket is killing bloke like Martyn. The generation coming through now use massive planks for bats and can mis-hit a 6 on any ground. Bring back the late cut!

I remember big Gus Rob. Just not very fondly.

Posted by: Fyson on November 1, 2006 2:01 PM

Rob - Gus was the one English bowler of the 90's who could have helped them to at least SOME success, but he was treated like crap by the selectors and officials.

Thank you Ben - you echo my sentiments exactly. Technicians are a dying breed, but when the art of bowling eventually resurfaces and we are blessed with a host of great leather hurlers like we had in the 80's, hopefully it will be realised that technique is the way to go. I had a discussion with another blogger yesterday in which I said I'd rather watch Dravid block 100 balls than watch other batsmen hacking ugly shots for 4. One day cricket has given people a mindset that a batsman has to be a dasher to be exciting to watch, but surely to the purist this cannot be the case. If the game keeps going the way it is, there will be no Laxmans, Dravids, Sarwans (maybe a surprising name but he is very correct), Vaughans , Martyns etc. left to marvel at.

Posted by: Sam on November 1, 2006 2:04 PM

While watch Aus v India the other night I was wondering why Laxman isn't there. What's happened to him? I agree Sam, he's lovely to watch. I have to say that the best series of cricket I have watched (for technique, fightbacks, artistic bowling, passion etc) was the 2001 India Australia series where we lost 2-1. I took a week off work so I could watch every ball of that last test. Brilliant. Even though we lost.

Posted by: Fyson on November 1, 2006 2:21 PM

I remember Dyer's "catch". Andrew Jones was howling. And he had every right to be. Anyone remember Healy's "stumping"?

Posted by: dave on November 1, 2006 2:26 PM

Dave - be you referring to the Lara stumping that wasn't a stumping? His maiden test century might have come two test earlier if it wasn't for that debacle.

Fyson, Laxman has apparently been left out of the ODI side due to his fitness. He is a relatively poor fielder and pretty sluggish. Still don't know why they wouldn't pick him though. I think for sheer class, not the situation of the match, his tonne when India got hammered in Sydney in 2000 (167 out of about 250) was the best innings from a visual point of view I've ever seen. I wonder how many other top order batsmen can say their test average goes UP by 10, and their ODI average by 15 when they play Australia?

Posted by: Sam on November 1, 2006 2:58 PM

We haven't had a decent debate about Martyn for months. Are we ready for another?

I thought the dodgy stumping was against Haynes, in Brisbane??

Posted by: Osmond on November 1, 2006 3:09 PM

Nah, pretty sure it was Lara - he was on 58 at the time from memory. Wearing earguards on his helmet (a la Carl Hooper, Sherwin Campbell) and using that Gray Nicholls Scoop. What an era.

Posted by: Sam on November 1, 2006 3:13 PM

Indeed I am Sam. Lara was in great nick during that Brisbane 50 until Healy cheated.

Posted by: dave on November 1, 2006 3:14 PM

Wasn't that cited as an example during the push for the video replays?

Posted by: Sam on November 1, 2006 3:19 PM

I'm going furtehr back. Anyone remember John Bracewell's catch at gully that wasn't a catch. I think it was the Adelaide oval. The farcical thing about it was that it made the finals of Classic Catches. I can remember Bill Lawry getting his feathers all ruffled by it. John Bracewell and Pat Symcox...separated at birth? Discuss...

Posted by: Fyson on November 1, 2006 3:36 PM

I believe so. Replays certainly weren't in effect in 1991 when Dean Jones made 145 at Brisbane having been run out by Defreitas, by about a metre, when on 3.

Posted by: dave on November 1, 2006 3:37 PM

Dave, that was when the dog track still went around the GABBA wasn't it? Was that a case of him "making his own luck"? I do love that phrase

Posted by: Fyson on November 1, 2006 3:41 PM

Strange dismissals. I remember Dyer saying he thought his was a fair catch - which if true was a good reason to drop him because it showed he was not watching the ball right into the gloves.

I think Osmond is on to something - I seem to recall a dodgy dismissal of Haynes, but maybe it was in the West Indies.

And how many times has Lara been done over? On top of his great record, I don't think I have ever seen a player get so many bad dismissals. Anybody think of anyone else? (Actually in my younger days the most bad decisions for one batsman I saw concerned Bobby Simpson, but the other way around - Sydney grade umpires never gave him out.)

Posted by: DM on November 1, 2006 3:46 PM

Yes, Jones, being a "confidence player", was making his own luck.

Lara uis not alone ... I wish I knew how many times Tendulkar hasbeen done over against Australia. I can remember at least 4 or 5 of his innings being over before they'd started thanks to a non existent knick or an awful LB decision.

Gilchrist LBW in a Test in Australia - you're having a laugh.

Posted by: dave on November 1, 2006 3:51 PM

DM and Osmond, I recall vaguely that Haynes was given out either caught behind or stumped (at any rate Ian Healy was invloved) during the FW Trophy series in 1991. He was given out somehow, and the crowd rioted and he was reinstated. I am very very hazy on this because apart from the Dean Jones 145 someone mentioned earlier, it was my first memory of watching cricket.

Lara and Tendulkar have both certainly been shafted at times over the years. Maybe its because they are so good that the umpire is almost looking for a reason to give them out - all the 50-50's I mean, because if he doesn't its seen as though the great players are getting preferrential treatment. Just a theory.

Posted by: Sam on November 1, 2006 3:59 PM

Dave. Gichrist LBW b. Flintoff.
October 15 2005.

Posted by: Fyson on November 1, 2006 4:02 PM

Ah ... in the world XI match - well there you go. Let's just say in proper Test matches then!

Dave (and I might add that distinguishing myself from you was the reason I took up the moniker DM), if the English bowlers insist on bowling from wide around the wicket to Gilchrist, why would any sane umpire give him out LBW?

Posted by: DM on November 1, 2006 4:45 PM

Fyson,
Gilchrist has played 61 test match innings in Australia to be given out LBW only twice.

Steve Waugh published in his book "Out of My Comfort Zone" that you could never get Javed Miandad out LBW in pakistan due to bias from umpires.

Maybe Gilchrist is the new Javed?

But then again, in 2005, Hoggard became the first seam bowler to get Gilchrist out LBW, so it might just be Gilchrist is a really good batsmen off the pads to pacemen.

Posted by: Barry on November 1, 2006 4:59 PM

I thought you were a Dungeon Master... What about other bowlers?

Posted by: dave on November 1, 2006 5:04 PM

DM,

It always amazes me when people assume that as soon as a bowler bowl around the wicket it will be automatically be assumed that no LBW shall be given.

It is less likely the ball will hit the stumps when bowling around the wicket, due to the angle that has increased, but bowlers have gotten wickets clean bowled from coming around the wicket. It is Leg Before Wicket, and no matter what side of the wicket a bowler bowls from, if the ball is in line with the stumps when the ball hits the pads, then the question should be asked and considered. Not considering any LBW as soon as the bowler goes around the wicket is just pre-meditating.

Posted by: Barry on November 1, 2006 5:07 PM

I played cricket for almost 30 years, at all sorts of levels, and was only LBW once in all that time. and that one was missing leg! like Gilchrist, I was an eye player, so I have many hundreds of bowled, and caught on the boundary, to my name.

but the home bias, everywhere, was awful. Hughes was LBW 7 times in the 81 series in England. I can, on the other had, now admit he was absolutely plumb in the last over at Adelaide in 80-1 when he padded up to a Kapil Dev full toss - not out (and made another 130-odd)! Javed was never LBW in Pakistan, but we got some terrible decisions (Alderman) against Pakistan in 1989-90 to win a test out here.

Barry - it also depends where it pitches. (stupid rule, but i don't write them. ban the leg bye!)

Posted by: Peter Warrington on November 1, 2006 5:21 PM

so we know what the "D" stands for. Now for the "M". Am thinking maybe Balmain 1sts in the early 70's? when did Mike Gatting play for Balmain - was that 76-ish?

are you the Neil Pringle of cricket? or Mike Fish?

and you are right re Simmo - everything bad that happened to Australia in the late 70's and early 80's (sorry, Dubbo) stems from him.

Posted by: Peter Warrington on November 1, 2006 5:35 PM

Barry.

The bastmen is also standing at least a yard away from the stumps, and if bowling pace, and the batsmen is gilchrist, probably further than that. If the ball hits the bastmen on the pads in line with the stumps by a right hander round wide of the crease round the wicket, then the angle means it's going to take the edge of leg stump at best. Most umpires will invoke benefit of the doubt by that stage.

Unless the ball is swinging. And I haven't seen much decent swing bowling in test matches in Oz since Hadlee retired. If the english quartet get the swing here they did in england, then maybe they're a hope.

Posted by: Yianni Velkou on November 1, 2006 5:38 PM

Barry. Where did you find that stat about Gilchrist?
Why do you think his low amount of LBW's is the case. It's quite extraordinary. He has been playing solely in the era of neutral umpires after all. Or do you still wish to pursue the biased umpiring track?

Posted by: Fyson on November 1, 2006 8:31 PM

Yianni,

Exactly. Using the Gilchrist dismisal as an example: Hoggard swings it into the left handers and if it pitches outside off on a good length and hits the pad - it will most likely go and hit middle or leg stump.

Warrington,

I am not sure of this but I have come across people that say if bowlng around the wicket and it hits pads on full and is in line, then an umpire should assume it is hitting the stumps?

Posted by: Barry on November 1, 2006 8:52 PM

The one fault that you guys have with your argument, is that there is no hard and fast rule about LBW. The bottom line is, if it doesn't pitch outside leg, and hits in line with the pegs, there is a chance. You can never positively say that "if a bowler bowls from such and such a spot he can't get an LBW." It doesn't work like that. Yes, often a righty coming round to a lefty will be denied, but not necessarily. A good umpire will forget about stupid misconceptions that bowlers bowling in certain circumstances cannot get a leg before decision.

Posted by: Sam on November 2, 2006 9:22 AM

Barry, yes, full tosses are treated differently.

Posted by: Peter Warrington on November 2, 2006 9:56 AM

Peter Warrington - I will maintain my air of mystery; I will admit to still referring to Neil Pringle as the prince of lock forwards, although I live a long way away these days and have taken up another football team - who the f*** are the Wests Tigers anyway?

I may have been a bit rash on my LBW comment re Gilchrist, although the point I was making was about the rules. Hoggard for instance would be highly unlikely to get an LBW from around unless the batsman didn't play a shot, because if the ball hit the left handed batsman in line it would be almost sure to miss leg stump.

I have never quite understood why the rule wasn't just 'if the ball would have hit the stumps'; although I think the current rule had something to do with the English trying to discourage inswinging medium pacers (yes, really). Sometimes you think sports make up complicated rules simply to exclude outsiders.

In this context the full toss rule must have been invented by a lunatic, although if you miss a full toss you probably deserve to be out. But I saw one from Warne - there was no way the ball would have hit the stumps, he had put enough rotation on it to just about dislocate his shoulder; but it hit the batsman on the full and the umpire had to give him out.

Posted by: DM on November 2, 2006 10:35 AM

yeah, remember that time - maybe even first day of the Ashes - in 74-5 when Tangles got Denness with a big inswinger, it was the first year you could be out if it hit you outside off, if you didn't offer a shot. commentators having an orgasm over the bylaws. them were the days!

must have been even more of a batsman's game before that. the pitching outside leg rule was to weaken legspinners. stupid game!

DM - a guy I worked with in govt a few years back played with Pringle for the Tigs in the early 70s, and had many amazing stories, but he refused to tell me to protect the young and innocent...

Posted by: Peter Warrington on November 2, 2006 11:45 AM

Fyson,

I dipped into my memory bank and got that stat on Gilchirst.

I believe that Gilchrists height is a factor, he is a left hander and is very good off the pads not to mention he is a very good batsmen as well who comes in at 7 when the ball more often than not isn't moving much. So that might be the answer to his ability to avoid the LBW.

I think, Bill Lawry was also an LBW avoiding freak...only one lbw in his career?

As for, umpire bias.....who knows. But the fact remains that Australians at home get away with more 50-50s and shockers than the visiting team especially of recent times. Just ask Tendulkar and Lara.

Posted by: Barry on November 2, 2006 12:54 PM

Tendulkar's been out 'LBW' 7 times in Tests in Australia

Posted by: dave on November 2, 2006 3:06 PM

Barry. Another thing with Gilchrist is that he takes guard on leg and rarely moves from there. He pretty much stands and delivers. He doesn't shuffle across like Tendulkar or take that exagerated walk across like Lara